The Brown Bunny

Stripped of all pretense, this movie is nothing more than a long, boring, pointless self-indulgent ego-trip. Vincent Gallo wants us to think he is a true artiste (you know... the type with the "e" at the end). But, how he thought anyone but him would find this entertaining or even thought-provoking is beyond me. Sure, you'll have your film-school drop outs that will label anything not Hollywood a masterpiece. But, let's be honest, if you had to sit through this pretentious snorefest one more time or watch "Raiders of the Lost Arc" for the 1000th time, which would you do? Heck, I am still convinced this was just a slick scheme by Vincent Gallo to get his ex-girlfriend to perform fellatio on him on screen. If that was his sole intent, then this film was a rousing success. If he actually thinks he made a good film, then he can keep pretending.

Vincent Gallo's THE BROWN BUNNY is a really creepy and weird film. I love weird, challenging films, but this was a bit too much for me. Much of the film is Vincent Gallo driving to a bike race remembering his girlfriend along the way. The final scene with him meeting up with his girlfriend chilled me to the bone. It was just twisted. While the film looks appropriately gritty and grimy at times, it is way too hard to sit through all the way to the end. I felt like a creep for watching. The film scared me in a really bad way. Vincent Gallo sure has talent! This is definitely a well made film. However, Vincent Gallo seems to have made this film for nobody but for himself. This is a highly experimental film that I don't recommend except for those people who are cinematically adventurous. It's an effective piece of work, but it's not really my thing. Adults only.

Brown Bunny, The (2004)

BOMB (out of 4)

Vincent Gallo's controversial film was one that I was really looking forward to but at the two minute mark of the film I really wanted to turn it off. This is the type of film that should have been a home movie about a depressed maniac being alone and that's that. Instead Gallo tries to do an art picture but it doesn't work at all, although I certainly wouldn't call this one of the worst films ever made. As much as I hate to say it but it's clear by watching this bomb that the guy does have some talent and I think some of this talent shines through here but in the end the film rubbed me the wrong way and never got me involved in the story. I was annoyed by Gallo's character and really didn't care what was going to happen to him. It was also quite annoying because it seems Gallo is begging the audience to care and love him yet he doesn't give us a reason to do so. I can certainly understand how some would fall into the film but that didn't happen with me. I would be interested in seeing the Cannes cut to learn how Roger Ebert went from a BOMB to a three star rating.

I saw a cut of the film on VHS a long time ago. I'm not sure if this was the Cannes version or not.

Many months later, I saw the film, again, in Santa Monica at the Nuart. Gallo was there to do q&a afterwards. I need to talk for a second about the groups of girls (young women) that were waiting to see, touch, taste, take a little bit of Gallo away with them. It made me feel so sad. Los Angeles does something to people. It hollows them out, at least a little bit. Then I snuck inside the theater and saw the empty cold movie theater till I was hassled to leave by the theater manager and get back in line outside.

All this happened before the screening. I watched the film at times sneaking glances with my best friend worried that the crowd was going to not get it and attack Gallo. For the most part they did. I wonder sometimes if people don't get a little more stupid in crowds. I think this was the case.

I really didn't know what to think of the film. I walked around afterwards wondering what the hell had I been watching. I knew why. The why is always because I believe in film as art and that it should be judged that way. But what had I been watching?

Now months later I think I'm a little more clear what that was. Gallo is a gorgeous technical filmmaker. He takes great leaps in his films in story assuming that the folks in the dark (the audience) is smarter than him. Sadly, these days most people feel that since they paid 11 dollars that the director is smarter than them. So they expect to be treated like a child and talked to in that way. Gallo is sadly living in this world and making films in it. He's more optimistic than I am, I guess.

I guess, if you couldn't find a review in the paragraphs above, that my review is, "well done, Gallo. it's not for everyone but none of can be and make movies like this."

While I give the film kudos for a story that I didn't see coming, after the first few minutes of needless (and extremely boring) motorcycle racing, I could see that I was NOT in the hands of a professional editor. The story could have been told far more effectively in half the time--or less. Gallo definitely needed to step away and let a professional editor do his/her thing and mercilessly cut scenes that didn't move the story forward.

While I could see that the author wanted the audience to crawl inside the protagonist, Bud, during the road trip, it didn't take that darned long to do it. Plus, his point of view changed too frequently. If we are inside his skin, then why are we looking at him for minutes in an excruciatingly long and tedious long shot? We need to see what he sees--at least with more consistency. I couldn't get my bearings in terms of what I was supposed to be experiencing and from what viewpoint.

There were other technical problems such as an inconsistency in lighting and shot quality with no apparent reason. And that spotted windshield drove me nuts. If a sign of depression and the carelessness that results from it, I'd have appreciated technique that didn't interfere so much with the visuals. Speaking of visuals, extending driving sequences to cover a song also seemed visually uninspired.

Probably most important, Gallo ignored common expectations of audiences and wanted things his way. I can't believe there wasn't an acceptable compromise. I'm pretty patient when it comes to art and film as art, but don't appreciate my sensibilities and expectations to be pushed beyond the breaking point when there appears to be no artistic justification for it. Too many scenes suffered from too few cuts and ran far too long, engendering more audience frustration than heightened emotionalism. I think this may be a result of an inexperienced and slightly self-indulgent filmmaker.

These technical problems aside, I'm usually able to spot a twist a mile away--but not this time. I wondered why all the women he encountered had flower names but that was just a hint that didn't make much sense until the end. But his name? Bud, as in "flower bud" and "clay" as in a substance in which flowers grow (he couldn't have named the character "dirt" or "mulch," after all) might have been a bit over the top. Again, typical of an immature filmmaker.

Was the encountered women's immediate sexual response to a complete stranger, fantasy on the character's part or the filmmaker's? I'd like to know how many men run into so many compliant females. From what I hear, not many--even when the guy is young, good-looking, and clearly pitiable. In this day and age, we ladies are a bit more cautious than that. Sorry, Vincent. While this may have been believable for males, I don't expect it was for very many female viewers.

I watched the film largely because I wanted to see if and how graphic sex could be incorporated into a drama without lowering it to the level of "high brow pornography." I think the film did a good job on that score, although I'd have preferred the use of a realistic-looking prosthetic such as that used in Boogie Nights. Perhaps the budget didn't allow for it or...who knows? It was certainly an interesting artistic choice and one that leaves me scratching my head in terms of the motive for including it. Symbolically, I'm a bit confused about it.

As effective and surprising as the end twist was, there could have been more in terms of Bud's descent into depression. But then, I'm a psychologist so am aware that symptoms are more than seeking surrogates, crying, and looking forlorn and depressed. Gallo missed, IMO, a chance to show more about what guilt and loss look like and how they affect people. Perhaps, this again, is a result of his inexperience. Personally, I think Redford's "Ordinary People" did a better job of showing a wider breadth of feelings of grief and loss.

Bottom line, although I thought the story had merit and did an excellent job of building to a surprising twist, I think it suffered severely in the journey towards the denouement. I hope Gallo matures and grows as a storyteller and filmmaker as I think he's got something to say worth watching.